DOJ Defends DOMA Again

You gotta give the people, what they want: Universal Life Church - www.TheMonastery.org In April of 2007 the Presiding Chaplain of The Monastery in Seatte, WA - G. Martin Freeman, released the following ecclesiastical proclamation on behalf of *millions of registered ULC ministers in the United States: Ecclesiastical Proclamation of The Monastery: “All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regardless of sexual design.” - Adopted and Approved 04/12/2007 Full Article: http://forum.themonastery.org/index.php?showtopic=2411 Celeb Ministers: http://universallifechurchministers.org/

Obama can kiss my ass.

You're welcome, Karen... And you raise some DARN GOOD points. Thank you!

I thought after 9/11 the Federal Government gave Federal benefits to gay partners with civil unions. So, isn't that a precedent? But, yes, it really gets down to queers need to do more political pressure and work. And, I for one am mixed on this. I live down South and see racist people using health care to try to tear down Obama because they can't stand having a Black president; and it's not totally their fault because the media here is so dominated by Fox and the misinformation is incredible, but... As an anti-racist lesbian, I see racism as a lot bigger an issue than homophobia. Of course, if I or my spouse would die B4 gay marraige and Fed benefits, then I'd be a screaming lunatic... I also feel really terrible for all the innocent people the US is killing in Iraq and Afghanistan... Most people reading the Advocate are of a higher income than me and undoubtedly have homophobia as their primary oppression, but I just wanted to share. Thanks for listening.

Get real, Jack Nasty. "Enforcement" is not the issue with DOMA. DOMA is not a criminal statute. It prevents the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages for the purpose of any federal benefit. If he fails to "enforce" DOMA, nothing really happens. If Obama's administration were to recognize same sex marriages, and grant benefits to the same sex spouses, he would be in direct violation of the law, and would be subject to impeachment.

Get real, Jack Nasty. "Enforcement" is not the issue with DOMA. DOMA is not a criminal statute. It prevents the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages for the purpose of any federal benefit. If he fails to "enforce" DOMA, nothing really happens. If Obama's administration were to recognize same sex marriages, and grant benefits to the same sex spouses, he would be in direct violation of the law, and would be subject to impeachment.

It appears our 'Fierce Advocate' has finally shown his TRUE colors. Obama is NOT interested in helping the LGBT community, despite his campaign promises to the contrary. Moreover, his concern for the Republicans is further alienating many Democrats and Independents who voted for change; something he has not, thus far, delivered. If things don't change soon, the 2012 Presidential election might mirror that of 1912. In THAT election the Republican vote split between Bill Taft and Teddy Roosevelt. As a result the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was elected. There is all ready talk of a Democrat challenging Obama for the 2012 nomination. We MAY just see history repeating itself.

Ahh...Obama...you would think you would understand the plight of not being treated equally. But, I guess your religion is more important. I mean, after all, separation of church and state is only applicable to you when it is good for you. Then again, what kind of world would we live in if gay people were allowed to marry? One of equality? Who wants that? Oh, and Commander in Chief - thanks for all those empty promises of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sure, take your time. Americans only die for their freedom - why not keep denying them the freedom to serve openly? It's not like they're risking their lives for you or anything. So brave in standing up for your country aren't you?

Presidents and Attorneys General can challenge laws they believe to be unconstitutional in court. They can also refuse to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional. There is no requirement that they defend unconstitutional laws. Should Obama and Attorney General Holder decide to do so, they could oppose DOMA and force Congress to provide its own defense of the law. Precedents include: United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), and Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). The fact is, Obama is defending anti-gay law that he promised to repeal during the 2008 campaign. Overturning a law in the courts is every bit as effective as repealing it through legislation. What has become apparent from Obama's defense of DOMA is that Obama suffers from what I call the Civil Rights for Some Syndrome.

Presidents and Attorneys General can challenge laws they believe to be unconstitutional in court. They can also refuse to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional. There is no requirement that they defend unconstitutional laws. Should Obama and Attorney General Holder decide to do so, they could oppose DOMA and force Congress to provide its own defense of the law. Precedents include: United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), and Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). The fact is, Obama is defending anti-gay law that he promised to repeal during the 2008 campaign. Overturning a law in the courts is every bit as effective as repealing it through legislation. What has become apparent from Obama's defense of DOMA is that Obama suffers from what I call the Civil Rights for Some Syndrome.